Farmer's Welfare and Farmers' Rights: Solving the Hoo-ha Surrounding the FCTC Article 9 + 10 Guidelines
Article 9 and 10 of the FCTC is set to be modified soon with guidelines, and world tobacco farmers are rallying to circumvent or halt any governmental efforts to comply with the upcoming guidelines. (From the article by the Chief Executive of the International Tobacco Growers Association, Mr. Antonio Abrunhosa) at http://www.financialpost.com/markets/news/ITGA+Asian+Farmers+Rally+Oppose+Devastating+World+Health+Organization/3583045/story.html (Accessed 28 September 2010)
Article 9 of the FCTC regulates the content of tobacco products and reads as follows: 'The Conference of the Parties, in consultation with competent international bodies, shall propose guidelines for testing and measuring the contents and emissions of tobacco products, and for the regulation of these contents and emissions. Each Party shall, where approved by competent national authorities, adopt and implement effective legislative, executive and administrative or other measures for such testing and measuring, and for such regulation.'
Article 10 is on the regulation of tobacco product disclosures, and what the guidelines will contain are, et al, restrictions or guidelines with the effect of restricting production and marketing of Burley and Oriental varieties of tobacco and ban the use of flavours in cigarettes and other tobacco products by disallowing the use of any other material than tobacco in the manufacturing process. Worldwide, as per the above article, tobacco farmers are objecting to governmental adoption of the new guidelines, claiming that the guidelines would destroy livelihoods due to the fact that the governments have not provided economically viable alternatives to tobacco growing.
Well, in Malaysia via the National Kenaf and Tobacco Board Act is meant to be the so-called launching pad from which a smooth transition from tobacco growing to kenaf growing is to happen. What's interesting about this Act is that s6(i) (which details membership of the National Kenaf and Tobacco Board) states that there must be representatives from the tobacco manufacturers and a representative of licensed curers. The problem about this is that if this Act is truly meant to be a act favouring public health efforts, why are we cooperating with tobacco manufacturers? It goes without saying that the welfare of tobacco farmers needs taking care of and communication of those concerns must happen. But public health (in Malaysia that's a population of 28 million citizens and another million or so expatriates) trumps welfare of about 20,000 tobacco farmers. And when there are more representatives of the tobacco industry in the National Kenaf and Tobacco Board than there are representatives from health organisations and governmental bodies associated with health, it hinders these public health efforts and puts a lovely facade on an Act that could have been better.
What is clear is that the Guidelines to Article 9 and 10 have to be implemented. Lung cancer rates are at an all time high and smoking prevalence in Malaysia still stands at 30-40%. The reality is that politically, there are going to be numerous obstacles to this target. At this point there are no studies yet on how the transition to kenaf is being handled and whether the ball has even started rolling on these projects. What there are studies on is the health risks posed to the farmers themselves. The data compiled in a 2009 study by Hoang Van Minh et al '... clearly show that tobacco cultivation (is) strongly associated with the occurrence of a range of health problems.' (Hoang Van Minh, Kim Bao Giang, Nguyen Ngoc Bich and Nguyen Thanh Huong, 'Tobacco Farming in Rural Vietnam: Questionable Economic Gain but Evident Health Risks' (2009) 9 BMC Public Health 24 at 30) Among the health risks studied were nicotine poisoning from handling tobacco leaves, dizziness, nausea, increased salivation, and a high heart rate. So if we want to scream and yodel about farmers rights, what about their right to health? Essentially they are yodelling about the right to earn money. They earn money to survive. And to survive, they need to be healthy. And according to this study, tobacco cultivation and welfare of tobacco farmers do not correlate.
Article 10 is on the regulation of tobacco product disclosures, and what the guidelines will contain are, et al, restrictions or guidelines with the effect of restricting production and marketing of Burley and Oriental varieties of tobacco and ban the use of flavours in cigarettes and other tobacco products by disallowing the use of any other material than tobacco in the manufacturing process. Worldwide, as per the above article, tobacco farmers are objecting to governmental adoption of the new guidelines, claiming that the guidelines would destroy livelihoods due to the fact that the governments have not provided economically viable alternatives to tobacco growing.
Well, in Malaysia via the National Kenaf and Tobacco Board Act is meant to be the so-called launching pad from which a smooth transition from tobacco growing to kenaf growing is to happen. What's interesting about this Act is that s6(i) (which details membership of the National Kenaf and Tobacco Board) states that there must be representatives from the tobacco manufacturers and a representative of licensed curers. The problem about this is that if this Act is truly meant to be a act favouring public health efforts, why are we cooperating with tobacco manufacturers? It goes without saying that the welfare of tobacco farmers needs taking care of and communication of those concerns must happen. But public health (in Malaysia that's a population of 28 million citizens and another million or so expatriates) trumps welfare of about 20,000 tobacco farmers. And when there are more representatives of the tobacco industry in the National Kenaf and Tobacco Board than there are representatives from health organisations and governmental bodies associated with health, it hinders these public health efforts and puts a lovely facade on an Act that could have been better.
What is clear is that the Guidelines to Article 9 and 10 have to be implemented. Lung cancer rates are at an all time high and smoking prevalence in Malaysia still stands at 30-40%. The reality is that politically, there are going to be numerous obstacles to this target. At this point there are no studies yet on how the transition to kenaf is being handled and whether the ball has even started rolling on these projects. What there are studies on is the health risks posed to the farmers themselves. The data compiled in a 2009 study by Hoang Van Minh et al '... clearly show that tobacco cultivation (is) strongly associated with the occurrence of a range of health problems.' (Hoang Van Minh, Kim Bao Giang, Nguyen Ngoc Bich and Nguyen Thanh Huong, 'Tobacco Farming in Rural Vietnam: Questionable Economic Gain but Evident Health Risks' (2009) 9 BMC Public Health 24 at 30) Among the health risks studied were nicotine poisoning from handling tobacco leaves, dizziness, nausea, increased salivation, and a high heart rate. So if we want to scream and yodel about farmers rights, what about their right to health? Essentially they are yodelling about the right to earn money. They earn money to survive. And to survive, they need to be healthy. And according to this study, tobacco cultivation and welfare of tobacco farmers do not correlate.
Comments
Post a Comment